WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified
Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of AEGIS
Combat System components as well as associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $450 million.
The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of the AEGIS
Combat System and select combat system and communication components
consisting of 3 AN/SPQ-9B Horizon Search Radars, 3 Cooperative
Engagement Capability Systems, 3 Naval Fire Control Systems, 3
Multi-Functional Information Distribution Systems, AN/SLQ-25A Nixie
Countermeasure Suite, MK160 Gun Computer System, AIMS MK XII
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) for the Air Warfare Destroyer
platform, communication and information distribution systems, U.S.
Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services,
personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment,
spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, and
other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $450
million.

Description: AN/SPQ-9B is an active phased-array rotating
radar that significantly improves the ability of ships to detect and
track low altitude anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in a heavy clutter
environment. The SPQ-9B is a high resolution track-while-scan, X-band,
pulse-Doppler radar which will enable detection and establishment of
firm track at ranges which allow the combat system to engage subsonic
or supersonic sea-skimming missiles at the outer edge of a ship's
engagement envelope. SPQ-9B integrates with SSDS Mk 2 on CVNs and LHDs.
The upgrade package improves those ships' ASCM defense capabilities to
pace the evolving worldwide threat. The SPQ-9B lightweight antenna
configuration which will become the standard installation for all ships
is also an integral part of the Cruiser Conversion program, providing
an ASCM cue to the AEGIS Combat System and gunfire control for the 5"/62 Mk 45 gun.

Program Status: The heavyweight antenna configuration of the SPQ-9B has been successfully demonstrated on the USS Oldendorf (DD-972). The new lightweight antenna configuration is installed on the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) and is scheduled for installation on Oldendorf
(DD-972) in early FY 2002 with Operational Test and Evaluation
scheduled for late FY 2002. Milestone III decision is planned for early
FY 2003.

The US Navy has installed the AN/SPQ-9A version on the Spruance and
Kidd-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The AN/SPQ-9B has
been provided to San Antonio-class amphibious assault ships. The SPQ-9
anti-ship missile warning system has been installed on allied navies'
ships such as Germany's Charles F. Adams destroyers.

Irrespective of the strength/quality of the Australian armed services, one always has to question that countrie's willingness to us it. I say this since at the time of the Falklands War, Australia immediately recalled every element of it's armed forces that were detached to those of the UK's, whereas, for example, New Zealand immediately sent a warship to the Middle East in order to permit the crucial re-assignment of a Royal Navy vessel to the Falkland's Task Force. Soldiers for the toy box only, I wonder ?

i saw that interview on TV (ABC's 7:30 report) he was coy about our chances though. Its about time we put the hard question on them, Howard didn't try nearly as hard, if at all.

Otherwise we may very well look at a proper and open competition with a fighter aimed at matching the sukhois. The Pooper Hornets cant do it and the F-35 is questionable. Enter the Eurofighter, if the US cant sell us a new fighter that can clearly matches the regional benchmark we should look elsewhere.

well well well Karl Copp was right all along the f-35 is useless against advanced Flankers.

Notice in the below report Liberal Nick Minchin rather take these reports with a grain of salt and put faith in what the manafaucter says instead. . He also fails to mention that the US will have Raptors to deal with flankers, Hi-lo mix duh, and the second largest user the UK will have the not so great but still effective Eurofighter for a similar mix. What a clown

i was waiting for this huge Howard mistake to be exposed before it to late.

my bolding

(Source: Australian Associated Press; issued Sept. 11)

The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of
the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets
used by Russia and China.

The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion,
were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights
against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month,
were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of
Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence
Organisation, The West Australian said.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report.

"This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News. "This is not real life."

Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from
its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as
the most advanced jet fighter ever. "I can't really say much about it,
but this is a phenomenal aircraft.

"As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia."

The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United
States military, Senator Minchin said. "We are fortunate to be in it
and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it."

WA Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen said he had spoken to a third
party with knowledge of the final classified test results who had
claimed the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated
Sukhois, The West Australian reported.

He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF.

Well it would appear that soon women will be able to fight in front line roles that were normally excluded from. They will be able to do so based on there skill not gender. Personally I think this is a great thing, its about time that they can do these roles if they want too.

The lifting of gender-based restrictions on defence personnel could see Australian women fighting in front-line combat.

The
federal government is reviewing the restrictions that prevent women
from occupying dangerous combat roles, and is considering replacing
them with ones based on physical attributes, Fairfax newspapers report.

The work is being done by the Defence Department's scientific arm, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

Women
now make up more than 13 per cent of Australia's Defence Force and can
serve in 90 per cent of its roles. However direct combat roles, such as
infantry, artillery gunners, armoured corps or combat engineers, remain
out of bounds.

While some women may not possess the physical
attributes required for the most demanding combat roles, the changed
restrictions would see them excluded on merit, not gender.

"It is
important that we keep working towards removing the barriers to women
being eligible to serve in all employment categories," Defence Minister
Joel Fitzgibbon told Fairfax.

"Studies such as the DSTO physical
standards project ... will assist in identifying practical measures to
removing such barriers."

FORT WORTH, Texas --- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

Here are the facts:

-- The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

-- The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

-- The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

-- When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.

Other important facts:

-- External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.

-- The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.

-- The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.

-- F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.

-- Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.

-- The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world -- F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado -- flown by 14 air forces.

-- In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion. (ends)

1.) How is that any different then the claims from the Mig 35/Su-35 camp, claiming invincibility? You're using subjective reasoning (i.e. whatever Mig and Sukhoi says must be true, and whatever LM says must be an exaggeration).

2.) If you doubt the avionics on the F-35 are inferior based upon what metric?Russian AESA technology is several generations behind that of the US, not to mention the other electronic gear on board the Lightning.

What assumptions are behind Lockeed claims? BVR combat or something a bit closer, there are a few viarables not disclosed. Anyway, even Janes say's this is mostly a ground attack fighter.

1)LM is a biased source either way, no one posted sources from Boing or the Russian camp as a word of truth.

2)F-35 avoinics should be superoir overall than a SU but this is still a system in development so no one can really claim that ground yet. You know its systems would also be better than that of the Raptor, doesnt mean it will beat it. The SU still has allot of room for further improvments in this area so it is not a closed subject. SU's from india and Malaysia also use western avoinics.

What assumptions are behind Lockeed claims? BVR combat or something a bit closer, there are a few viarables not disclosed. Anyway, even Janes say's this is mostly a ground attack fighter.

1)LM is a biased source either way, no one posted sources from Boing or the Russian camp as a word of truth.

2)F-35 avoinics should be superoir overall than a SU but this is still a system in development so no one can really claim that ground yet. You know its systems would also be better than that of the Raptor, doesnt mean it will beat it. The SU still has allot of room for further improvments in this area so it is not a closed subject. SU's from india and Malaysia also use western avoinics.

The press release may be from LM, but Maj Gen Davis is from the USAF. Its not as if LM is in dire need of sales like Sukhoi and Migs are.

Yes the Flanker has room for further improvements, but there is no getting around to the fact that the airframe is from the 70's. Your big radar cross section is like a painted bullseye. And all the supermaneuverabiliy won't save you from an Amraam fired from its "no escape" by an F-35 you did not even know was there. You may put all the AESA radar you can afford but you can't change the fact that, from an operations and maintenance point of view, russian jets are horrible. Their engines require an overhaul after using half as much flight hours as western engines. With two engines per plane, a squadron of 12 Flankers will have a horrible availability rate.

Also, all these Aussie fuss about the F-35 is due to the fact that you want the F-22. Its a superb plane but it is not for sale. With Japan and Israel already being denied. Good luck with getting it.

What assumptions are behind Lockeed claims? BVR combat or something a bit closer, there are a few viarables not disclosed. Anyway, even Janes say's this is mostly a ground attack fighter.

1)LM is a biased source either way, no one posted sources from Boing or the Russian camp as a word of truth.

2)F-35 avoinics should be superoir overall than a SU but this is still a system in development so no one can really claim that ground yet. You know its systems would also be better than that of the Raptor, doesnt mean it will beat it. The SU still has allot of room for further improvments in this area so it is not a closed subject. SU's from india and Malaysia also use western avoinics.

IDonT wrote:

The press release may be from LM, but Maj Gen Davis is from the USAF. Its not as if LM is in dire need of sales like Sukhoi and Migs are.

Yep, even people in the US AF are not totally reliable, the Pentagon and the big manufactures are too close. how many top brass eventaully work for these companies as high paid consultants and lobbyists, think of the Boeing AA refueling contract fiasco.

The USA AF have an interest to, they are committing big funds into this project and they need us to buy up and subsides it as much as possible. Once one 'partner', esp some one like Australia move elsewhere its hard to stop others.

Um since when are the russian needing sales? Russia is doing quite well with their sales, yes they are a bitch to maintain (hey im not saying we should buy them) but they are cheap. Like using an old cheap muscle car with a 351 for street racing it makes sense in certain types of budgets (banf for buck). Right now the US depends on major arm twisting to get such things as old done up F15's flogged to Asian buyers. otherwise they have a delayed and more costly F35 competing with euro cardards or SU's with proven delivrables.

IDonT wrote:

Yes the Flanker has room for further improvements, but there is no getting around to the fact that the airframe is from the 70's. Your big radar cross section is like a painted bullseye. And all the supermaneuverabiliy won't save you from an Amraam fired from its "no escape" by an F-35 you did not even know was there. You may put all the AESA radar you can afford but you can't change the fact that, from an operations and maintenance point of view, russian jets are horrible. Their engines require an overhaul after using half as much flight hours as western engines. With two engines per plane, a squadron of 12 Flankers will have a horrible availability rate.

Here is the rub, the F35 is only meant to be stealthy front on, and it is not expected that foreign airforces would get something as advanced (stealthy) as the US or maybe the UK. When we are talking from a foregn perspective we expect a dumbed down version of a bomb truck.

So the big advantage doesnt apply for other airforces, and mind you beyond that BVR advantage, it is expected that the f-35 will get its arse kicked. The russians have strong EW and missile technology, anyone that doesnt have the very latest western gear (AIM-120D-Meteor, AESA) will be out ranged and jammed. I bet most of this technology is also unavailble or hard to get under current export rules. Killing the F-35 as a dependable AA fighter.

In this case, who cares if your f-35 can see first, if the SU might still be able to lob over a missile as the stealth part wears off beforehand, and then clean you up when in sight. But the US or the Uk dont worry (and why their gerals are relaxed about it), because they have other advanced fighters better fitted out for the job (HI-Lo mix). Now if the F-35 is a certain bet against advanced SU's then why build the Raptor or buy Euro fighter? It would make sense to have two fighters logicistally unless there was a clear deferention between one and the other.

This is not even addressing the Flanker (euro fighter) use of IIR sensors. If there is any belief of any western missile superoirty, there is none. The russians make very good missiles something the west discovered when East Germany united with the west. Seeing that their dogfighters where toast; europe and the US scrambled to make new short range AA's (ASSRAM, IRIS, AIM-9X).

IDonT wrote:

Also, all these Aussie fuss about the F-35 is due to the fact that you want the F-22. Its a superb plane but it is not for sale. With Japan and Israel already being denied. Good luck with getting it.

A fleet of 100% F-35's wont cover our arses and we know it, thats why we have a fuss. Small country, big budget, neighbourhood full of cheap and nasty Adv SU's means we have our own needs. Other gaps in our forces, was the early F-111 retirement. So now we have no long range strike bomber, another gap the F-35 simply is not designed for and those rubbish super hornets will not cover. The rest of this is a commercial desicion that the US can make. This has it own long term risks over market share with a rich, allied, rather dependable and respected arms buyer. Dont be suprised if we cut our f35 order either way (save the money) and hold out for future alternatives to hedge that risk.

Japan and Isreal dont have as much an issue (maybe japan) with SU's. You can add sth Korea to that list.

1.) The F-15 sales to Singapore and South Korea was legit. It went up against the Eurofighter, Rafale, and a Flanker variant and they still won. One of the main reasons is no one can beat the support and weapon system that the U.S. can offer with their arms package. IMO, Australia could use a few squadrons of these AESA F-15.

2.) Even from the rear, the F-35 is much much stealthier than the Flanker series or the Euro canards. Even if the RAAF gets the dumbed down version, it is still much stealthier than anything out there save for the F-22 and B-2.

3.) Steath, even the "dumbed down" versions, have this ability of lowering the effective range of tracking and targeting radars. How do you proposed the Flanker series "lob a few missiles" at planes it doesn't even know is in its area of operation? Does the pilot randomly fire an AAM at a possible bearing?

4.) The F-35 is rated at 9g. It can dog fight with the best of them and with HMCS and AIM 9x, it is deadly.

5.) THe F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. Even though the F-16 is primarily use as abomb truck, it is still a superb air to air combatant. Also, except for radar, the F-22 has to be "upgraded" to get to the avionics level of the F-35.

6.) As for missile superiority, how many aircraft have Russian built AAM have ever shot down. What were its hit ratio? The AMRAAM has a proven kill record of about 80 percent.

Actually I think, over the long run, this is a very smart idea. You have to consider the fact that our near neighbours have a much greater population than us. On top of which, the NZ military is scaling back its operations and we no longer wish to rely on the US and UK for our defence in a dire situation.

In ramping up our defence capabilities we are not only retaining and creating more jobs during this harsh economic time, but we are freeing up options in foreign affairs in the future. As it is, we rely on our allies in the US far too much, which has led us into questionable actions on the world stage in order to preserve that relationship. If we are more secure in our defence, we can begin to reduce our reliance on the US and branch out to create new alliances across the globe and have a greater say in world affairs.

In addition, it sends a strong message to our neighbours from Indonesia to China that we aren't to be ignored. While obviously there's little chance we'd win a war against China should it ever come to that, the spikier we look the less likely it is that we will be pushed over. When you consider our past relationship with Indonesia you'll understand what this means to Australia.

the money part is not the issue, its the man power. economic downturns make great oportunities to fill in the ranks, and the already big issue of crewing our own 6 subs is top of mind.we can only crew 3..... They will increase pay but they also need to increase crew rotation.

I think having an ability to design (or contribute to a design) and build our own subs is as important as actually having them. Having 12 should mean we can deny most major sea lanes to our north against a decent sized navy. even if you hold back 4 subs for training, repairs and servicing - there is eight you can field in the PNG-coral sea, Timor-sunda Islands and java/Christmas islands gaps......or look at a defence and attack posture. either way we would have the depth and flexibility to pick and choose.We dont want to lose the skills and ability gained from their expensive (but eventually fruitful) design and manufacturer. That would be money wasted.

We always needed at least 12 of them, we have vast expanses to cover. The subs are the most economic way a small power can match up to a larger power threat. no aircraft carriers or massive guided missile cruisers needed.

being a pro self-reliance/big defence budget voter i can point to the Sweden and Israel (amongst others) as realistic examples to imitate. They prove you can build your own weapons and defense industry and be small. You cant build all weapons, but the critical ones and/or critical subsystems (avionics) can be cherry picked into a national program. i would nominate submarines (Sweden), UAV's (think Israel), some fire control (like our very own JORN) as top of that priority list for domestic development. Countries that do quite allot on their own like South Africa and Sweden (along with other smaller European countries) could make good long term JV partners if costings get to big.

In addition, it sends a strong message to our neighbours from Indonesia to China that we aren't to be ignored. While obviously there's little chance we'd win a war against China should it ever come to that, the spikier we look the less likely it is that we will be pushed over. When you consider our past relationship with Indonesia you'll understand what this means to Australia.

actually China could not come here under current forces so we could win a defensive war with the PRC. they simply dont have the ships

actually China could not come here under current forces so we could win a defensive war with the PRC. they simply dont have the ships

I would quite agree. I should have phrased that better, I was considering a little way into the future as (if I recall correctly) China is currently in the process of modernising its Navy. At this stage a war with China is highly improbable, but as time progresses and China's needs grow and so does its military capacity, we need to look like we're not worth the while.

As seems to be usual on these topics I'm going to disagree with my compatriots, but only slightly.

While I totally support defence independence, and I totally support local manufacture, I don't know what we are supposed to be buying this for, it doesn't seem to be economically wise. Of all the threats facing Australia enemy nations are the least threatening. We should have spent this money on electricity and water. No point in being able to fight and not eat. Lets irrigate the York peninsular with desalinated water, solve our looming electricity crisis. There are so many higher priorities for the money.I don't know if there is some top secret battle plan that no-one publicises but I think the military has a very old fashioned and colonial outlook to defence. No-one seems to have figured out that the huge expanse of Australia is our biggest strength and weakness.

That being said I am glad that this huge expenditure is at least partially locally made. It means that the money is not wasted but reinjected into the economy.

Leo wrote:

economic downturns make great oportunities to fill in the ranks,

As long as we want to staff the ships with commerce workers.

In addition, it sends a strong message to our neighbours from Indonesia to China that we aren't to be ignored. While obviously there's little chance we'd win a war against China should it ever come to that, the spikier we look the less likely it is that we will be pushed over. When you consider our past relationship with Indonesia you'll understand what this means to Australia.

What about Madagascar? I mean our long running border dispute with them over the Indian Ocean has got to be a cause for concern. And some anti-pixie cannons could come in useful too, just incase they decide to come down from the moon to take Sydney Harbour Bridge away.

"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum